5 ms·

This is self-published research by a think-tank, not a peer reviewed scholarly publication; also, the actual paper for this finding doesn't yet seem to be avail

by lambda 10y ago

This is self-published research by a think-tank, not a peer reviewed scholarly publication; also, the actual paper for this finding doesn't yet seem to be available, just summaries by news organizations. This article does link to some older papers by them, which go into very little detail on methodology. As such, it's really hard to say what kind of abuse they are talking about; slut shaming and rape threats, while both awful, can be quite different. Also, I am curious about how they accurately determine gender of Twitter users; there are many fake accounts on Twitter, and I don't believe Twitter even reports gender identity of users.

nxzero 10y ago
Is there any research that show being peer reviewed in fact makes a difference? General speaking, I would think research should just speak for itself.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Generally speaking, you think... well that's nice. Meanwhile, in the world of the scientific method, the issue is that everyone needs to know that you didn't just write something down for fun or profit. If your results can't be replicated... thbbpt.
  - trentmb 10y ago
    > If your results can't be replicated Results aren't replicated during peer review, are they?
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      Not necessarily, but at least the methods can be evaluated to see how likely it is that they can be. A black box with, "Trust us, here's what we found" is weak as hell, unless you're still into Pons and Fleischmann I guess.
      - nxzero 10y ago
        Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. Science is not a singlar effort, nor is peer review without replication. Please question your assumptions about what science really is.
        Aelinsaar 10y ago
        Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?
        nxzero 10y ago
        What did I say that's conflicted?
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Try reading the thread closely, looking for nuances you may have missed.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Depends on the publication, I believe. There was a comment here a bit ago where someone pointed out that such journals do exist (for example, Organic Synthesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses ).
  - chongli 10y ago
    The elephant in the room with science across the board is that replication studies are not an attractive way to pull in grant money. It's a big problem!
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    So given how little work is done reproducing findings, there is minimal value?
zenogais 10y ago
It actually sounds like old research was either reproduced or simply read at a forum for stopping internet abuse (#ReclaimTheInternet) by this researcher (http://www.demos.co.uk/people/alex-krasodomski-jones-2/ http://www.demos.co.uk/people/alex-krasodomski-jones-2/). Another research paper, by a different author from the same think-tank, from 2013-14 had the same result: http://www.demos.co.uk/project/misogyny-on-twitter/ http://www.demos.co.uk/project/misogyny-on-twitter/

by lambda 10y ago

nxzero 10y ago

Is there any research that show being peer reviewed in fact makes a difference? General speaking, I would think research should just speak for itself.

Aelinsaar 10y ago
Generally speaking, you think... well that's nice. Meanwhile, in the world of the scientific method, the issue is that everyone needs to know that you didn't just write something down for fun or profit. If your results can't be replicated... thbbpt.
- trentmb 10y ago
  > If your results can't be replicated Results aren't replicated during peer review, are they?
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Not necessarily, but at least the methods can be evaluated to see how likely it is that they can be. A black box with, "Trust us, here's what we found" is weak as hell, unless you're still into Pons and Fleischmann I guess.
    - nxzero 10y ago
      Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. Science is not a singlar effort, nor is peer review without replication. Please question your assumptions about what science really is.
      - Aelinsaar 10y ago
        Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?
        nxzero 10y ago
        What did I say that's conflicted?
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Try reading the thread closely, looking for nuances you may have missed.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Depends on the publication, I believe. There was a comment here a bit ago where someone pointed out that such journals do exist (for example, Organic Synthesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses ).
- chongli 10y ago
  The elephant in the room with science across the board is that replication studies are not an attractive way to pull in grant money. It's a big problem!
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  So given how little work is done reproducing findings, there is minimal value?

zenogais 10y ago

It actually sounds like old research was either reproduced or simply read at a forum for stopping internet abuse (#ReclaimTheInternet) by this researcher (http://www.demos.co.uk/people/alex-krasodomski-jones-2/ http://www.demos.co.uk/people/alex-krasodomski-jones-2/). Another research paper, by a different author from the same think-tank, from 2013-14 had the same result: http://www.demos.co.uk/project/misogyny-on-twitter/ http://www.demos.co.uk/project/misogyny-on-twitter/